Slashdot Mirror
The SCO Boomerang and the Strength of Linux
karvind writes "PJ of Groklaw has written an insightful article on benefits flowing from SCO's litigation: GPL stands up in court, the community bonded more tightly than ever, encouraged increased support for FOSS and last but not the least heightened awareness of the benefits of using GNU/Linux systems. Article is also on Yahoo and NewsFactor."
the community bonded more tightly than ever
*cough cough BITKEEPER cough*
I concur, except keep the look and feel as-is, and do not allow image attachment to posts, believe me, you won't like the results
The GPL is so robust that, when violators are confronted with it, they invariably fold. It has been a complete non-issue. Even SCO does not argue that the GPL is invalid, only that the FSF and IBM haven't enforced it fairly.
The GPL is a work of sheer genius.
1: Calling the system by it's proper name is trolling?, wow.
2: You want RMS to die?, do you want 20 years of fight against the stablishment, the GPL, the FSF, and 60% of the software on your average distro to die with him too?.
You sir, are an uneducated bastard.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
RMS and his cult is holding back the commercialization of free software. Maybe GPL 3 will fix some of the problems, but as long as RMS is running the show, we can't enjoy the full commercial potential of the software.
That's reason enough to wish that he'll fade away.
None is needed, as the other post says.
If I understand it correctly, it works like this. When a company is about to go to court, they realize that the GPL is the only thing that gives them the permission to distribute the code. If they try to argue that the GPL doesn't apply, then they suddenly have nothing in their favour at all and are clearly guilty of copyright infringement.
No wonder it never went to court, because it's clearly an unwinnable situation.
Everyone seems to bitch about Roland, but looking on the slashdot hall of fame for most active submitters, I find that Roland is second.
The first person(prostoalex ) has more accepted submissions, also has a blog, and has nobody complaining about him.
Without regular roving reporters, digging out interesting stories, slashdot would be shit.
I have not come across a single article where Roland forces people to his blog, EVERY single article blurb links directly to his original source, the blog is just another more indepth writeup, you are NOT forced to go there at all.
However submissions by sheeple to NYT and salon etc are far more annoying by forcing signups and payments just to read the news.
The rest of your suggestions are pretty much spot on however.
liqbase
Free Software exists so that you can be a computer user without being held hostage by whomever owns the software you use. That was RMS's idea, that's the whole purpose of Free Software. Comercialization is something that may happend, but it's not the main purpose for having free software.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
"I am a goat fucker!" -Richard Stallman, 1994
A bit of MIT/LCS lore here.
RMS used to live on the 7th floor of LCS. That's where he used to have his office before he resigned in protest over the commercialization of something or another. But they let him keep his office, and he lives there, because he refuses to have an apartment. (Given the rent rates in Cambridge, the assholeness of most landlords, I don't blame him. Rather than live in my office, I chose to move to Texas, and the change in rent rates and lack of state income tax resulted in an immediate %25 pay raise. RMS doesn't have that option because we have the death penalty for people like him down here.)
Anyway, RMS has or had a number or geek chick groupies. I wouldn't call any of the ones I've seen "hot", really -- well except for this one little psycho jewish undergrad from NYC. He would sleep with them on the sofa in his office. That's why he got kicked out off floor 7, and down to the 3 floor, is that the cleaning staff complained about pulling used condoms out from behind the sofas. No joke. You can use this information for trolling if you wish, but it's all true.
RMS has a phobia of water that prevents him from showering. This is part of this post I know from first hand experience, because I myself have observed him taking a sponge bath in the 3d floor mens room in LCS. Apparently once he had a girlfriend who he was totally in love with, and she convinced him to take one shower a week. It was a traumatic experience for him each time.
RMS also has a phobia of spider plants. When RMS starts bothering a grad student and going to his office and talking to him constantly and getting him to spend all his time writing free software, the grad student will complain to someone on the floor, and they'll let them in on the secrete -- get a spider plant in your office. The next time RMS drops by, his eyes will bulge a little and he'll say " Umm. . . I wanted to talk to you about hacking some elisp code . . . why don't you stop by my office sometime ?" and make a hasty exit.
One of his more nasty habits is picking huge flakes of dandruff out of his hair while talking to you. At least he doesn't eat them, like some people I know.
Now, I know everyone loves to make fun of RMS, and I'm feeding that a bit here, so I'd just like to say that I think he really is a genius, on the order of Socrates (another filthy slob who couldn't keep a normal living arrangement, and lived in a barrel) or Ghandi or Ezekiel. Everything he has ever said to me, while sounding naive and idealistic and stupid at the time, turned out to later be correct.
The only thing I fear in his philosophy is his interest in reducing population growth. Everyone else I know of who was obsessed with that "problem" turned out to have facist or totolitarian tendencies, and I think that the problem will solve itself as more and more of the world moves into a middle class type existence.
But on everything else, bitter experiences have taught me he is right. I will not use any non-GPLd or lGPLd software, and I look forward to being able to buy only "open" hardware. I would like to see software patents completely eliminated, and with the development of digitial communication, I see no reason why shouldn't simply repeal all of Title 17 and do away with all copyrights. They just aren't needed. I expect to spend much of my life being paid to write software, and I just don't see copyrights has helping me in anyway.
PJ in the article says everybody knows that GPL software has no risks (or no more risks then other software). Well it's not true, a lot of of CIO still don't know and/or are still thinking of linux as if it was 1995.
If they were not like that, the article she wrote would not have been necessary. So, it is a good thing she wrote it, but there is no boomerang effect, just yet.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
You don't seem to quite get how the GPL works (as don't many, many people, including Darl McLies). Apologies for the slightly reactionary tone of that sentence, but it's important to understand exactly what it is and how it will be used in court... read on:
The GPL is a license to use copyrighted software. As such it will never be 'tested in court' in the sense you describe. However, it is a (perhaps the only) defence against a charge of copyright infringement, where the code user cannot demonstrate some other license to use the software[1].
In fact, SCO is using it as its defence in the 8th (iirc) counterclaim, which is where the court then will determine if SCO has fulfilled all the licence terms. That is all the 'test' it will ever get, and all we will ever need.
Once you understand that, the idea suggested by Darl that all GPL works should be declared Public Domain becomes clearly visible as the idiotic idea it is: it would involve stripping copyright from hundreds (thousands!) of works for the benefit of exactly the same type of people who are currently having copyrights extended so they can continue to make money off long-dead artists (eg Sonny Bono).
Justin.
[1] AFAIK there is nothing to stop the owner of some code both relieasing under the GPL and simultaneously licensing it for commercial use for money. After all, why should the owner of some code not do as he/she wishes with it?
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
The other reply points out how many billions GNU/Linux is currently worth and is projected to be worth in the next few years. That's how much it is worth to the tech companies that sell computers.
Why is GNU/Linux the juggernaut that it is today? Why has it been growing at 50% compound annual growth rate for more than a few years and projections put it at the same compound growth rate for the next 3-5 years depending on who you ask? At that continued growth rate, if it can be sustained and the analysts project it out at that rate for 3-5 years so they believe it can be sustained, it will eclipse Microsoft to become the #1 operating system on servers. It already is #1 on blades. Why all this? Because companies and industry see the value in GNU/Linux powered systems. The real value is competition, no lock-in from Microsoft, no lock-in for ridiculous priced Sun hardware. GNU/Linux, x86, and AMD/64 have made servers commodities, broken the OS and cpu monopolies.
The value that isn't stated in the numbers of the other post is the hundreds of billions of dollars in value in the US (and worldwide, but we're addressing your regulatory comment) that companies outside of tech, but who are dependant on computers for their revenue and earnings, the value that they place on GNU/Linux.
Does Daimler Chrysler sell blades? Servers? Embedded devices? Desktops? They are an automotive company, not a computer hardware company. But they saw the value in GNU/Linux, and they became "well known to be a Linux shop". So a multi-billion dollar, Fortune 500, non-tech company sees tremendous value in GNU/Linux. Any guess whether the rest of the companies in the Fortune 500 see value in GNU/Linux?
Any guess in which lobbying direction the other 450+ (excluding Microsoft and some of the tech companies that are dependent on Microsoft dominance) companies of the Fortune 500 will send their lobbyists when it comes to lobbying legislators to flex WTO muscle?
As for Microsoft, they can't do anything at all. Other posts are mentioning that Microsoft will start enforcing patents or funding other companies to do this. As soon as they do this, anti-trust rears its head. Perhaps the only thing Microsoft fears more than GNU/Linux is the threat of being broken up into pieces like Ma Bell. This already has been suggested (by a judge iirc), where Microsoft would be broken up into Operating System and Office, or it can be taken far further, breaking up additional units (like the Great Plains Software and other divisions).
Microsoft got a pass with the current anti-trust situation in the US. They are well aware this can change overnight based on their anti-competitive actions, or based on a change in government administration in the US. That's why Intel is treading carefully with AMD and allowing them to exist. They can shut down AMD overnight by simply cutting prices and riding it out cushioned by their cash reserves for a few or more years. Japan brings up interesting questions on anti-trust with Intel. Does Intel have any of the anti-competitive contract/compensation requirements with US hardware manufacturers like it has with the manufacturer that complained in Japan? Tech journalists should start asking these questions, hopefully others will pick up the questions and keep asking Intel. If they do and it is found out, AMD will pick up major market share (and possibly Dell as a customer) once those illegal contracts are banned and action is taken against Intel, if the contracts exist.
GNU/Linux may be worth 15 billion now and 50 or a 100 billion in the next few years, but it is worth far more to non-tech companies who will prevent going back to the Unix & Microsoft lock-ins of the past with every fiber of their being.
The big lie behind this FUD is that by using M$ software, or any propriatory packages, you are somehow covered against being sued.
However, people may remember not long ago, M$ SQL Server developers were being threatened with lawsuits, due to a patent conflict. See this Register Article...
The licence of your software really bears little relevance to how likely you are to be sued IMHO.
You *probably) know this, but your wording seems unclear, so for the benefit of other readers, I shall clarify.
Actually the GPL has nothing to do with 'using' software (eg running an application, loading and booting an OS, etc). Default copyright doesnt place any restrictions on someone merely 'using' a program - only proprietary EULA's go there (and it is controversial as to wether those are/should be binding at all).
The GPL merely covers copying all or part of the source code of a GPL'ed program into another program, or modifying it and releasing compiled versions of the modified code. By default, copyright grants you no rights to do either of these. The GPL says 'ok, normally you can't do this, but as long as you comply with these terms, then you can'.
Copyright law says you can't copy something without permission from the copyright holder (personal and fair use notwithstanding). Period.
The GPL does nothing more than _GRANT_ permission to people that agree to abide by its terms. Period.
That's it. If you don't agree to the terms, you don't have the permission that it grants, and you have no more permission to copy it than if the GPL weren't there at all, but the work was still copyrighted.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
RMS may be a little freaky... Okay, he's a LOT freaky. I think that most people are put off more, though, by the near-religious aspects of his approach to free software.
I'm a big free software fan, but I frame it in highly practical terms. Copyright is a monopoly, by definition--to some extent, it's a justifiable monopoly, because of the benefits of guaranteeing an economic return to the parties that create and fund its development. It helps to economically rationalize the costs of software development, because the work of creating it can be rewarded in a way that would otherwise be difficult.
But the downside of the monopoly is pretty big, too--proprietary lock in is the big one, in my mind, but there's more. If you're reliant on closed-source software, you usually have to take it as-it, bugs and missing features and bloat, and all. OSS tends to encourage a lot more flexibility, interoperability, and choice in the way things work. The business benefits of these freedoms are huge, no question.
The great thing about OSS is that it still allows revenue streams for software creators and funders. The creators of MySQL get a lot of consulting business based on the fact that they know the software better than anyone else. People who make big Linux kernel contributions can find jobs easily with companies that need Linux expertise, because they have a proven qualification in that area that means more than a million certifications. So the people that contribute have a payoff.
And GPL-style licenses are more effective at preserving these revenue opportunities than BSD-type licenses, because they tend to prevent proprietary code-forking, which keeps projects under the control of the original creators more easily.
This is the great realization of OSS that can be couched in purely economic terms: all the benefits of copyrightable works, but minimizing the negatives of the monopoly that comes with it.
I don't know how much RMS agrees with this particular sentiment, but then again, I don't really care.
"Unless you have a problem with clean room reverse engineering"
If he's got a problem with reverse engineering, he must be buying all of his PCs from IBM right? I mean, wasn't the BIOS reverse engineered?
http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
http://www.macintouch.com/pchistory.html
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm
Links from a quick google sesssion.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Are you in law school or AYAAL? You actually made sense..... [you might want to explain what estoppel is next time though, since all of five people understood it, present company included.]
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
No.
/. may say by posting I give unrestricted rights to them, but thats not related to the GPL or my browser).
If you read the GPL carefully (it seriously sounds like you havent - I suggest when you have a bit of free time that you pop over to http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt and read it through - its quite interesting, and may well clear up a lot of confusion you have) you will note that it applies only to taking the GPL'd source code, and adding it (or adding other code to it) to produce a new program. It specifically says it does *NOT* apply to the act of loading the program onto hardware (which would include to a harddrive, into a CPU, all steps of its execution including whatever microcode might be involved).
"Making copies to CD" would fall under 'distribution', not 'use'. And you are only restricted (by the GPL) if you distribute *modified* copies. The basic premise is, if you are distributing a binary/complied program, that anyone that you distribute it to, has the ability to compile the same binary themselves, and the ability to pass that ability on to anyone they choose to distribute it to. It is unimaginable to me that someone *choosing* to license and distribute code that they wrote (or have copyright of) under the GPL, would ever interpret the GPL in the way you are thinking. Also note that the terms that commercial companies might want to impose on the persons who buy their software has nothing to do with what the GPL imposes.
In the case of fonts, only if you took a GPL'd font, and modified it to make a new different font, would the GPL come into play. And even then, unless you distributed the new font (and again, merely using it to produce a document wouldnt count - I mean actually distributing the font itself, in such a manner that someone else would be able to use it to produce a document), it would require nothing. If you did sell (or give away) copies of the font, you would be required to give away the 'source code' (is there such a thing, as regards to fonts? If not, then the entire thing may be moot anyway) to your new font.
Using a font to write a document would *not* require that the document be distributed under the GPL, or that it be distributed at all. If you use a GPL'd math-formula program to write and print some formula (maybe even the one that is the answer to life, the universe, and everything), you arent suddenly required to license your formula under the GPL - you can keep it secret, put it in the public domain, or license it under any terms you choose. Lets say I was using a GPL's web browser to type this post - doing so wouldnt require that this post be GPL'd, or remove my copyright to this post (now the TOS of
The GPL doesn't even require you to distribute modified works. The *ONLY* thing it requires, is that if you *choose* to distribute either a modification of the program you received under the GPL, or another program, that incorporates source code from the program you received, that you also make available the source code of the new program.
In other words the licenses scope is determined by copyright law's definition of a derived work.
Now what you may be thinking of is this passage:
My post specifically addressed that the courts are reconsidering exactly what "running" vs. "copying" is in terms of copyright law. So yes this would have impact on the GPL in terms of software.
Finally on the fonts issue:
The *ONLY* thing it requires, is that if you *choose* to distribute either a modification of the program you received under the GPL, or another program, that incorporates source code from the program you received, that you also make available the source code of the new program.
You are flat wrong regarding only distributing modified versions requiring source. Section 3 is quite specific that any distribution requires source " You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [valid methods of distributing source listed]"
So in summary:
1) The GPL applies to any distribution
2) What constitutes a derived work vs. work constitutes use is a function of the law not the license, so court ruling dealing with commercial licenses will have impact.
3) The binary form of a word processing document can be in violation of a copyright claim even if the printed version is not. A trivial example would be distributing a work with the entire text of a best seller in a white font embedded within the document.